Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758972AbcLBTzH (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:55:07 -0500 Received: from host.buserror.net ([209.198.135.123]:45601 "EHLO host.buserror.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754687AbcLBTzF (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:55:05 -0500 Message-ID: <1480708489.3947.3.camel@buserror.net> From: Scott Wood To: Michael Ellerman , yanjiang.jin@windriver.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jinyanjiang@gmail.com Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:54:49 -0600 In-Reply-To: <874m2n7yrf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> References: <1479704219-21403-1-git-send-email-yanjiang.jin@windriver.com> <874m2n7yrf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Organization: NXP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 50.171.225.118 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: oss@buserror.net X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * -15 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. * See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block * for more information. * [URIs: windriver.com] Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: cputime: fix a compile warning X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on host.buserror.net) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1020 Lines: 27 On Fri, 2016-12-02 at 15:15 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > yanjiang.jin@windriver.com writes: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h > > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h > > index 4f60db0..4423e97 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h > > @@ -228,7 +228,8 @@ static inline cputime_t clock_t_to_cputime(const > > unsigned long clk) > >   return (__force cputime_t) ct; > >  } > >   > > -#define cputime64_to_clock_t(ct) cputime_to_clock_t((cputime_t)(ct > > )) > > +#define cputime64_to_clock_t(ct) \ > > + (__force u64)(cputime_to_clock_t((cputime_t)(ct))) > Given the name of the function is "cputime64 to clock_t", surely we > should be returning a clock_t ? That was my initial reaction but it seems that this function has meant "return a u64 that is otherwise like clock_t" since before the beginning of git history.  Both generic implementations return u64, including jiffies_64_to_clock_t which does so explicitly. -Scott